Telangana High Court

Thota Srinivas vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 24 August, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                      AND
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


W.P.Nos.13061, 13062, 13078, 13080, 13170, 13795,
13803, 13806, 13807, 13810, 13816, 13817, 13818,
13831, 13866, 13899, 13908, 13909, 13911, 13913,
13914, 13915, 13919, 13938, 13950, 13954, 13964,
13965, 13968, 13969, 13987, 13988, 14007, 14011,
14017, 14019, 14079, 14103, 14104, 14105, 14107,
14109, 14114, 14118, 14119, 14121, 14122, 14124,
14125, 14126, 14127, 14128, 14133, 14135, 14192,
14193, 14205, 14213, 14214, 14220, 14222, 14224,
14225, 14226, 14227, 14229, 14251, 14252, 14257,
14274, 14280, 14421, 14446, 14452, 14455, 14457,
14458, 14459, 14464, 23263, 23279, 24823, 24831,
24884, 24931, 29514, 29817, 30821, 30834, 30836,
30878, 30905, 30918, 30927, 30931, 30939, 31194,
31316, 31318, 31322, 31345, 31396, 31415, 31416,
31471, 31489, 31507, 31509, 31526, 31570, 31611,
31648, 31663, 31700, 31707, 31726, 31728, 31731,
31779, 31780, 31858, 31916, 31982, 31985, 31990,
32012, 32021, 32243, 32429, 32440, 32443, 32493,
32542, 33197, 33225, 33651, 33660, 33666, 33667,
33672, 33681, 33878, 33879, 33885, 33890, 33943,
34102, 34488, 34496, 34589, 34606, 34608, 34646,
                          2




34658, 34666, 34669, 34714, 34760, 34979, 35347,
35348, 35606, 35678, 35684, 36080, 36083, 36118,
36126, 36209, 36248, 36603, 36623, 36690, 36963,
              37415, 37533 of 2021;
204, 657, 708, 716, 736, 779, 795, 989, 1072, 1088,
 2080, 2099, 2102, 2117, 2121, 2124, 2125, 2126,
 2128, 2129, 2132, 2137, 2145, 2151, 2157, 2159,
 2160, 2165, 2166, 2168, 2169, 2173, 2177, 2204,
 2217, 2225, 2227, 2229, 2238, 2260, 2275, 2348,
 2352, 2354, 2355, 2387, 2396, 2519, 2556, 2560,
 2572, 2578, 2602, 2612, 2636, 2637, 2638, 2648,
 2651, 2653, 2707, 2718, 2724, 2726, 2793, 2851,
 2878, 2932, 2955, 3145, 3177, 3264, 3439, 3458,
 3459, 3493, 3707, 3708, 3711, 3728, 3736, 3754,
 3796, 3806, 4093, 4643, 4830, 5500, 5513, 5563,
 5572, 5588, 6114, 6122, 6124, 6149, 6206, 7444,
 7463, 7674, 8412, 8417, 8420, 8435, 8446, 8457,
 8515, 8569, 8579, 8620, 8628, 8642, 8646, 8674,
 8696, 8723, 8747, 8755, 8776, 8782, 8833, 8860,
 8866, 9274, 9284, 9490, 9491, 9493, 9494, 9497,
 9498, 9500, 9501, 9503, 9505, 9508, 9515, 9516,
 9517, 9521, 9531, 9533, 9548, 9552, 9555, 9558,
 9567, 9584, 9588, 9603, 9604, 9607, 9637, 9639,
 9649, 9650, 9660, 9690, 9704, 9712, 9720, 9747,
 9793, 9794, 9816, 9825, 9848, 9852, 9881, 9910,
9913, 9949, 9974, 9983, 9990, 9996, 9999, 10001,
10008, 10043, 10046, 10051, 10059, 10079, 10084,
                                    3




 10113, 10120, 10199, 10265, 10293, 10299, 10306,
 10347, 10413, 10860, 10955, 10978, 10982, 10989,
 10996, 12612, 12747, 12751, 12753, 12771, 12870,
 13023, 13673, 15858, 15918, 15957, 15966, 16821,
 17378, 18092, 18467, 18502, 18571, 18572, 18585,
 18598, 18634, 18647, 18651, 18672, 18717, 18736,
 18752, 18839, 19197, 19203, 19204, 19209, 19212,
 19231, 19276, 19335, 19429, 19447, 19473, 19478,
 19609, 20197, 20200, 20202, 20203, 20209, 20737,
 20754, 20767, 20783, 20808, 20809, 20813, 20821,
 20830, 20942, 20961, 20965, 21588, 24358, 24362,
 24420, 24656, 24663, 24673, 24689, 24704, 24719,
 24720, 24734, 24741, 24747, 24757, 24774, 24783,
 24785, 24787, 24788, 24800, 24816, 25002, 25007,
 25021, 25195, 25210, 25214, 25269, 25383, 25389,
 25501, 25529, 25636, 25707, 25724, 25758, 25867,
 25879, 25909, 25910, 25924, 25944, 25956, 26060,
 26061, 26078, 26107, 26109, 26147, 26158, 26195,
 26544, 26726, 26734, 26748, 26843, 26987, 27013,
  27038, 27039, 27050, 27537, 27543, 27765, 27804
                  and 28962 OF 2022

COMMON ORDER:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



      This order will dispose of the above noted writ

petitions.
                                      4




2.   We have heard Mr. D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned

counsel for the petitioners; Mr. T.Surya Karan Reddy,

learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for

the Coal Mines Provident Fund; and Mr. B.Arjun, learned

counsel     appearing       for    Singareni     Collieries     Company

Limited.


3.   All the writ petitions have been listed today as it was

mentioned that the issue raised in the writ petitions has

been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch

of writ petitions, being W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch,

decided on 26.07.2022.


4.   For a proper appreciation, we may advert to the relief

sought for by the petitioner in W.P.No.13061 of 2021,

which is the first case of the batch.               The prayer made

therein is as under:

             "For the reasons stated in the accompanying
     affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
     pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,
     more    particularly    one    in   the   nature   of   writ   of
     mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents

No.1 to 3 in insisting me to pay the Coal Mines Provident Fund at the rate of 12% & 7% towards

contribution of the contractor for the persons i.e., driver and others engaged by me in respect of providing one 2WD JEEP (Non A/c) hired by me to the respondents company in pursuance of the Order No.7500041948 dated 10.08.2019 and the steps being taken up by the respondents company for deduction of Coal Mines Provident Fund towards contractor's contribution from the amounts payable to me in accordance with the above mentioned work order though there is no condition in the service order with regard to payment of any Coal Mines Provident Fund by me and though the provisions of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948, are not applicable to my case as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 and AP (Telangana) Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme and pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

5. From the above it is evident that the writ petitioner,

who is a contractor of Singareni Collieries Company

Limited, is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in

making certain deductions as contribution of the

contractor for the persons engaged by him, such as drivers,

for the purpose of coal mines provident fund. It is the

contention of the petitioner - contractor, that provisions of

the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1948 (briefly, "the Act" hereinafter), are not

applicable to a contractor, like the petitioner. Therefore,

such deduction is illegal.

6. We may mention that the present bunch of writ

petitions were listed on 17.08.2022 under the caption

"covered matters" on mentioning being made by

Mr. K.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents

on 03.08.2022.

7. It was pointed out that the issue raised in this batch

of writ petitions has been answered by a Division Bench of

this Court vide the judgment and order dated 26.07.2022

passed in W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits

that because of inadequate assistance rendered to the

Court by learned counsel for the petitioners in

W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch, the judgment rendered

by this Court on 26.07.2022 may not be the correct law.

He makes a distinction between employees under a

contractor over whom the management has overall control

and employees under those contractors over whom the

management has no control. In the case of the present

batch of writ petitions, management of Singareni Collieries

Company Limited has no control over the employees of the

petitioners. Therefore, provisions of the Act would have no

application.

9. By filing written submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioners has placed on record the following decisions:

i) Karachi Bakery v. Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner1;

ii) Standard Chartered Bank v. Union of India2;

and

iii) Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation v.

P.R.Narahari Rao3.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits

that counter affidavits have not been filed by the

respondents in majority of the cases. No memo has also

1990 Law Suit (AP) 61

2002 (2) LLJ 754

1986 Ker L.J. 994

been filed to say that the counter affidavits filed would be

the stand of the respondents in the entire batch. He has

also found fault with the order dated 30.07.2020 passed by

the Provident Fund Inspector, Coal Mines Provident Fund,

Kothagudem, as according to him, under the Act it is only

the Commissioner who can pass such an order and not the

Inspector.

11. Mr. T.Surya Karan Reddy, learned Additional

Solicitor General of India submits that contentions urged

on behalf of the petitioners are only academic now. The

core issue as to whether employees engaged by a transport

contractor engaged by the Singareni Collieries Company

Limited would fall within the definition of the term

"employee" under Section 2(d) of the Act has been

answered by a Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch. It is this decision which

will now govern the cases before us. Filing of counter

affidavits in all the cases therefore is not necessary.

Insofar order passed by the Provident Fund Inspector is

concerned, he submits that Provident Fund Inspector had

passed the order on directions of this Court dated

07.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.11482 of 2019. Even this

aspect also is of no significance now, as the core issue has

been answered by this Court.

12. Learned counsel for the remaining respondents have

adopted the submissions made by learned Additional

Solicitor General of India and submit that issue raised in

the present batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by

the decision dated 26.07.2022 rendered in W.P.No.33111

of 2013 and batch.

13. Before we advert to the decisions cited by learned

counsel for the petitioners, we may refer to our order dated

17.08.2022, which reads as follow:

"These matters are listed today under the caption "covered matters" on mentioning being made by Mr. K. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for respondents, on 03.08.2022.

At this stage, Mr.Mohan, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner in item No.377 i.e., W.P.No.6423 of 2022, submits that W.P.No.6423 of 2022 relates to a different

subject matter unconnected with the present batch and therefore, the same may be segregated.

In the instant batch of writ petitions, the prayer made is for a declaration that the action of Singareni Collieries Company Limited and its authorities in insisting payment of Coal Mines Provident Fund by the contractors (petitioners) for persons engaged by the contractors, such as drivers etc., in carrying out contract work relating to transportation of coal from the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, as illegal and arbitrary.

In a batch of writ petitions, being W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and others, the question which fell for consideration and for which reference was made to the Division Bench was as follows:-

"Whether a driver employed by a transport contractor engaged by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited for transportation of coal would fall within the definition of the term 'employee' under Section 2(d) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 or not?"

On due consideration, the Division Bench by a

common judgment and order dated 26.07.2022 held as

follows:-

"21. From a conjoint reading and careful analysis of the above provisions, the irresistible conclusion one can draw is that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. It is intended to confer certain benefits

on labour working in or in connection with a coal mine. Thus the provisions of the Act are to be construed liberally. In the circumstances, in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in K.Venkateswarlu (supra) and decisions rendered by the Coal 27 Mines Provident Fund Organisation holding that activity undertaken by the contractor falls within the ambit of the definition 'coal mine', the employees engaged by the contractor would be entitled to the benefits under the Act as well as under the provisions of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. The doubts expressed by the learned Single Judge in the previous round of litigation i.e., in Mallikarjuna Transport (supra) does not appear to be justified and the same has been proved by the consequential orders passed by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation.

22. Thus upon thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that a driver employed by a transport contractor engaged by the company for transportation of coal would come within the definition of the term 'employee' under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, such a driver or employee would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.

23. The referred question is answered accordingly.

24. In view of the decision rendered above, all the writ petitions would naturally have to fail and accordingly those are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

Therefore, the present batch of writ petitions is squarely covered by the above decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court.

At this stage, Mr. L. Sridhar, learned counsel submits that he is led by Mr. D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel, and therefore the order may be passed in the presence of his senior."

14. In Karachi Bakery's case (supra) order was passed

by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner invoking the

provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for the employees of

Karachi Bakery for the period April 1, 1977 to March 21,

1979. By the said order, contribution and administrative

charges of Rs.20,384.25 was levied on the employer i.e.,

Karachi Bakery as its contribution to the provident fund.

This order came to be challenged by way of a writ petition.

However, the writ petition was dismissed which led to filing

of the appeal. The Division Bench adverted to the

definition of "employee" under Section 2(f) of the

Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions

Act, 1952, as it stood at the relevant time. Applying the

above definition, the Court posed the question as to

whether employees of Devandas Bakery and Ram Bakery

could be said to be employed for wages in any kind of work

in connection with the work of Karachi Bakery and

whether those employees got their wages directly or

indirectly from Karachi Bakery, then whether they could be

construed to be employed by or through a contractor or in

connection with the work of Karachi Bakery or whether

they could be treated as employees of Karachi Bakery? In

the above context, the Court noticed that the other two

firms were treated as independent units engaging their own

labour for the purpose of manufacture of separate products

and the employees of these independent units could not be

brought under Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident

Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as employees

of Karachi Bakery. Therefore, the appellate Court

interfered with the order passed by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner and reversed the finding of the learned

Single Judge.

15. The facts in Karachi Bakery's case (supra) and the

issues considered therein are clearly distinguishable from

the facts of the related batch of writ petitions, being

W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch.

16. Insofar the decision of the Calcutta High Court in

Standard Chartered Bank's case (supra) is concerned,

that was a case where the question arose as to whether the

canteen employees were employees of the bank. Applying

the principle of ultimate control, learned Single Judge of

the Calcutta High Court took the view that employees of

the canteen may not be construed to be employees of the

bank. Therefore, the writ petition filed at the instance of

the bank assailing the order of the Assistant Provident

Fund Commissioner was disposed of remitting the matter

back to the authority to take a fresh decision in accordance

with law. We are of the considered opinion that the above

decision rendered by the learned Single Judge having only

persuasive value is also distinguishable on the facts and

circumstances of the case.

17. As regards the decision of the Kerala High Court in

P.R.Narahari Rao's case (supra) is concerned, the issue

before the Kerala High Court was the dispute relating to

contribution payable in respect of the temporary/casual

workmen of a covered establishment under the provisions

of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

18. Insofar the Division Bench decision of this Court in

W.P.No.33111 of 2013 and batch is concerned, the same

was decided on a reference made in view of the two

conflicting decisions of Single Benches. The question

which was referred to the Division Bench was as under:

"Whether a driver employed by a transport contractor engaged by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited for transportation of coal would fall within the definition of the term 'employee' under Section 2(d) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 or not?"

19. After narrating the factual aspects and related

orders of this Court, the Division Bench delved into the

relevant provisions of the Act and held as follows:

"12. The Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (already referred to as 'the Act' hereinbefore) has been enacted to make provisions for the framing of a Provident Fund Scheme, a Pension Scheme, a Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme and a Bonus Scheme for persons employed in Coal

Mines. 'Coal Mine' is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. Section 2(b) of the Act is as under:

(b) "Coal mine" means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal has been or is being carried on, and includes-

           (i)         all borings and bore holes;
           (ii)        all shafts, in or adjacent to and belonging to a

coal mine, whether in the course of being sunk or not;

(iii) all levels and inclined places in the course of being driven;

(iv) any open cast working or quarry, that is to say, an excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal has been or is being carried on, not being a shaft or an excavation which extends below superjacent ground;

(v) all conveyors or aerial rope-ways provided for the bringing into or removal from a coal mine of coal or other articles or for the removal of refuse therefrom;

           (vi)        all adits, levels, planes, machinery, works,
                       railways,    tramways     and    sidings,   in    or

adjacent to and belonging to a coal mine;

(vii) all workshops situated within the precincts of a coal mine and under the same management and used for purposes connected with that coal mine or a number of coal mines under the same management;

           (viii)      any office of a coal mine;
           (ix)        all power stations for supplying electricity for

the purpose of working the coal mine or a number of coal mines under the same management;

(x) any premises for the time being used for depositing refuse from a coal mine, or in which any operation in connection with such refuse is being carried on, being premises exclusively occupied by the employer of the coal mine;

(xi) all hospitals and canteens maintained for the benefit of the employees of a coal mine or a

number of coal mines under the same management;

(xii) any coke oven or plant;

(xiii) any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a coal mine, on which any plant or other machinery connected with a coal mine is situated or on which any process ancillary to the work of a coal mine is being carried on.

12.1. Thus, from the above it is seen that definition of 'coal mine' is a broad based one. It means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining coal has been or is being carried on and includes all borings, bore holes etc. It is an inclusive definition which includes all workshops situated within the precincts of a coal mine and under the same management and used for purposes connected with that coal mine or a number of coal mines under the same management; any office of a coal mine; all power stations for supplying electricity for the purpose of working the coal mine or a number of coal mines under the same management; any premises for the time being used for depositing refuse from a coal mine or any operation in connection with such refuse is being carried on, being premises exclusively occupied by the employer of the coal mine; all hospitals and canteens maintained for the benefit of the employees of a coal mine or a number of coal mines under the same management; any coke oven or plant etc.

13. Learned Single Judge in K.Venkateswarlu (supra) observed that the expression 'coal mine' is defined as any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a coal mine, on which any plant or other machinery connected

with a coal mine is situated or on which any process ancillary to the work of coal mine is being carried. Even the authority while passing consequential order has taken or given a broad interpretation to the expression 'coal mine'.

14. Section 2(d) of the Act defines the word 'employee' as under:

(d) "employee" means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with a coal mine, and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes-

(1) any person employed by or through a contractor or in connection with a coal mine, and (2) for the purposes of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, also

(i) any other person who is employed as a sanitary worker, mali, teacher or domestic servant in or in connection with a coal mine and who receives wages directly from the employer, and

(ii) any apprentice or trainee who receives stipend or other remuneration from the employer.

14.1. Thus, 'employee' has been defined to mean any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in a coal mine or in connection with a coal mine and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer and includes (1) any person employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with a coal mine and (2) for the purposes of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme (i) any person who is employed as a sanitary worker, mali, teacher or domestic servant in a coal mine or in connection with a coal mine and who receives wages directly from the employer; and (ii) any apprentice or trainee who receives stipend or other remuneration from the employer. Again

here also, the word 'employee' has been given a broad meaning which includes any person who is employed directly or through a contractor in a coal mine or in connection with a coal mine and includes persons engaged as sanitary worker, mali, teacher or domestic servant etc. It also includes any apprentice or trainee who receives stipend or other remuneration from the employer.

15. This brings us to the definition of 'employer'. 'Employer' is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act as under:

(e) "employer', when used in relation to a coal mine, means any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the coal mine or of any part thereof and in the case of a coal mine the business whereof is being carried on by a liquidator or receiver, such liquidator or receiver and in the case of a coal mine owned by a company the business whereof is being carried on by a managing agent, such managing agent; but does not include a person who merely receives a royalty, rent or fine from the coal mine, or is merely the proprietor of the coal mine, subject to any lease, grant or licence for the working thereof, or is merely the owner of the soil and not interested in the coal of the coal mine; but any contractor for the working of a coal mine or any part thereof shall be subject to this Act in like manner as if he were an employer, but not so as to exempt the employer from any liability.

15.1. Thus, the word 'employer' when it is used in relation to a coal mine means any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the coal mine or any part thereof and includes a contractor for the working of a coal mine or any part thereof and who would be subject to provisions of the Act in a like manner as if he were an employer, but not so as to exempt the employer from any liability.

15.2. Thus, as per the above definition, a contractor working for a coal mine would also be included in the definition of 'employer'.

16. Section 2(f) defines 'fund' to mean the provident fund established under the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme."

20. Referring to clause 25A of the Coal Mines Provident

Fund Scheme, 1948, the Division Bench held that the

works carried out by a contractor, transporting coal or

officials of the coal mine, would be covered by the

provisions of the Act. It has been held as follows:

"17. Clause 25A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, 1948 explains the class of employees required to join the fund after 31.12.1961. As per sub-clause (1), every employee of a coal mine to which the Scheme applies other than an excluded employee shall be required to join the 'fund' and become a member immediately after the end of the month following any month or quarter as the case may be in which he completes the days of attendance as mentioned in sub- clause (v) therein.

18. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the definitions of 'coal mine', 'employee' and 'employer', it is evident that the works carried out by a contractor, transporting coal

or officials of the coal mine would be covered by the provisions of the Act."

21. During the hearing, learned Additional Solicitor

General of India also referred to paragraph 19 of the

aforesaid judgment to contend that the contractor had

entered into a contract agreement with the Singareni

Collieries Company Limited as per which the contractor

had bound himself to comply with the provisions of the Act

and Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.

22. Upon thorough consideration of the matter, the

Division Bench concluded as under:

"21. From a conjoint reading and careful analysis of the above provisions, the irresistible conclusion one can draw is that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. It is intended to confer certain benefits on labour working in or in connection with a coal mine. Thus the provisions of the Act are to be construed liberally. In the circumstances, in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in K.Venkateswarlu v. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation (W.P.No.29331 of 2013 dated 09.10.2013) and decisions rendered by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation holding that activity undertaken by the contractor falls within the ambit of the definition 'coal mine', the employees engaged by the contractor would be entitled to the

benefits under the Act as well as under the provisions of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. The doubts expressed by the learned Single Judge in the previous round of litigation i.e., in M/s. Mallikarjuna Transport v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited (W.P.No.11107 of 2009 and batch, dated 30.03.2011) does not appear to be justified and the same has been proved by the consequential orders passed by the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation.

22. Thus upon thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that a driver employed by a transport contractor engaged by the company for transportation of coal would come within the definition of the term 'employee' under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, such a driver or employee would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.